• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Should revenge porn web sites be made illegal?

Should revenge porn web sites be made illegal?

  • Yes, make them illegal. They're harassment, not protected free speech

    Votes: 22 42.3%

  • No, they should be legal. They're in bad taste, but they're legal.

    Votes: 30 57.7%
  • Total voters
    52
I'm pretty sure someone could sue the site owner if they wanted to under current law.

Luna Tick said:
In case you're not familiar with the case, there was a web site run by a sleazy and unethical man named Hunter Moore in which people angry at their ex's would post nude photos of them against their will, photos that were originally intended to be private. They were photos that usually resulted from "sexting." Very often the victims of the unwanted uploads protested and tried to get their photos removed. Moore, predictably, refused. That site was called Isanyoneup. I can say that because it's since been taken down. Moore had been confronted by some of his victims and had always shirked responsibility with the line, "I didn't upload those photos. Someone else did." Yeah, but you set up the site that encouraged them to. Fortunately, his site is now gone. He chose to get rid of it, maybe because of pressure or guilt or legal threats. I'm not sure. That's the good news. The bad news is someone else put up the same kind of site to replace it. I won't say that site's name. The twist with the new site is it includes a link to a "lawyer" that can help them get their photos removed. Of course it's not a real lawyer. It's just the site owner getting people to pay hundreds of dollars to get the photos removed that belong to them anyway and that they never authorized being published.

The poll is whether it should be illegal to put up revenge porn sites like this. "Yes" means they should be made illegal. "No" means they should be legal.
Click to expand...
 
I would think it's harassment. According to the definition below, I wonder if this could even fit into the definition of sexual harassment. I don't know how this guy is getting away with this.

Here is the legal definition:

harassment (either harris-meant or huh-rass-meant) n. the act of systematic and/or continued unwanted and annoying actions of one party or a group, including threats and demands. The purposes may vary, including racial prejudice, personal malice, an attempt to force someone to quit a job or grant sexual favors, apply illegal pressure to collect a bill, or merely gain sadistic pleasure from making someone fearful or anxious. Such activities may be the basis for a lawsuit if due to discrimination based on race or sex, a violation on the statutory limitations on collection agencies, involve revenge by an ex-spouse, or be shown to be a form of blackmail ("I'll stop bothering you, if you'll go to bed with me"). The victim may file a petition for a "stay away" (restraining) order, intended to prevent contact by the offensive party. A systematic pattern of harassment by an employee against another worker may subject the employer to a lawsuit for failure to protect the worker. (See: harass, sexual harassment)
 
It's simple. If you don't want your photo or video potentially uploaded to the Internet, don't get photos or videos done. I went and looked at a couple of sites because I wasn't aware of them and from what most descriptions said, they were uploaded because the girlfriend cheated on them. While I don't condone uploading private videos, I also don't condone cheating. If one hadn't been done, the other likely wouldn't have been done.
 
Excon said:
:doh
You calling him such does not make him such.
Click to expand...

Granted, that's a subjective judgement. It's not an exact science like physics. However, most people agree with me. It's also subjective judgement that pedophiles are scum, and most agree that they are.

Excon said:
Sharing the photo with another is not "intending them to be private".
Once you give it away, it is a gift for the other to do as they please with it.
Click to expand...

Nonsense. That's not how copyright law works. I work as a photographer and therefore am well versed in digital copyright. Even without any written contract, an image belongs to the person who took the picture. Most of these images were taken by the nude person herself. Often they're sent with text to the effect of "for your eyes only." I was in a relationship in which the guy asked me to sext him a picture. He assured me I could trust him and that he would never show the photos to anyone else. Fortunately, I refused. We had a nasty breakup a few months later and he hated me so much that he vandalized my car. Imagine what he would have done if he had had nude photos of me. I'm very, very glad I didn't sext him any. If I had, the copyright would have belonged to me, but I'd doubt he would have cared about that law.

Other photos on the site were taken in secret via hidden cameras. That's a severe violation of privacy. If it's not illegal, it should be.

Excon said:
Hyperbolic nonsense. He didn't shirk responsibility.
The responsibility falls on the person who submitted the photo and the person who gave it as a gift in the first place.
Click to expand...

Uh ... no. He created the web site. He's responsible for the consequences of its existence. If one of the users of his site violates copyright law, he has a duty to remove the offending material.

Excon said:
Got evidence that it is just the site owner?
Click to expand...

Actually, yes. The "lawyer" page is actually on the same site. They didn't even bother to set up a fake lawyer URL.

Excon said:
No, not really, because the photo was freely given in the first place.
Click to expand...

First, not all the photos were freely given. Some were the result of hidden cameras. Second, those that were freely given are owned by the woman or man who took the photo of themself. That's how copyright law works. You take a photo. You own it. No contract is necessary for that law to be in effect.

Excon said:
There was trust when it was given, but that had long passed, especially since the photos were of people who violated that trust in the first place by hurting the submitter of the photo. Hence the term "revenge".
Click to expand...

Bad breakups are a part of life. They hurt, I know. I've been there. However, the fact that your feelings are hurt does not give you the legal right to violate copyright law. And ethically, it shows your character as a person if you choose to take revenge against someone you once loved instead of moving on and working to make your life better.
 
Surtr said:
Weak argument.
Click to expand...

It only speaks directly to your misunderstanding of the issue, as it is applied by the courts. So, yes, in that sense, it is very weak ...
 
Luna Tick said:
Nonsense. That's not how copyright law works. I work as a photographer and therefore am well versed in digital copyright. Even without any written contract, an image belongs to the person who took the picture. Most of these images were taken by the nude person herself. Often they're sent with text to the effect of "for your eyes only."
Click to expand...
Yep. If the owner of the website posted it as part of a for-profit endeavor, he could very well be sued civilly.

I'm not sure what penalties the ex-bf would face, considering that he didn't intent to make money from submitting the photo. (Presuming he was paid nothing) Maybe fraud for claiming that he had the right to give the website owner the right to publish.
 
don't use blanket bans to target particular abuses. It's like banning the Ford Focus because drunk people slam them into children.
 
If someone gives another person nude photographs, it does not give them the right to share it with the public, unless a disclaimer was signed by the person who shared the photograph. This isn't limited to the digital domain, you can easily scan a regular photograph and turn it digital. The DMCA (Digital Millennium Copyright Act) and the regular Copyright act (for non-digital photos) protect the person who originally took the photograph, even if they have not filed for copyright protection.

Putting a photograph on the internet that someone else gives you is a violation of copyright. You can be sued to the fullest extend of the law. If you don't believe me, go to a professional photographer and get some photos done. Now, take those prints to a place that provide a professional photo duplicating service and they will not process those photos because the photographer that took your picture owns the copyright. You can only get prints through that photographer.

I am well versed in copyright law. I have several copyrights that I filed for and own. This is not a first amendment rights issue, this is a copyright infringement issue. Huge difference.
 
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to defamation and libel. Posting nude pictures of someone without their consent can have a very tangible negative effect on their employment prospects, etc. It's pretty open and shut. The website could easily be sued, as such cases have been successfully prosecuted in the past.

Surtr said:
Weak argument.
Click to expand...
 
Peter Grimm said:
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to defamation and libel. Posting nude pictures of someone without their consent can have a very tangible negative effect on their employment prospects, etc. It's pretty open and shut. The website could easily be sued, as such cases have been successfully prosecuted in the past.
Click to expand...
The website shouldn't be sued but the actual person who put up the photos. In your logic Facebook could be sued because of some random person putting up a photo someone else didn't consent to.
 
Luna Tick said:
However, most people agree with me.
Click to expand...
WTF? Who? Where?
With what exactly?


Luna Tick said:
It's also subjective judgement that pedophiles are scum, and most agree that they are.
Click to expand...
Doesn't make them right. And objectively, they are wrong.
And since objectivity is what matters. Their subjectivity does not.



Luna Tick said:
Nonsense. That's not how copyright law works. I work as a photographer and therefore am well versed in digital copyright. Even without any written contract, an image belongs to the person who took the picture. Most of these images were taken by the nude person herself.
Click to expand...
Wrong. If she had given it away, it is a gift to do with as one pleases.
If there is any prior understanding, that goes to Contract.


Luna Tick said:
Often they're sent with text to the effect of "for your eyes only."
Click to expand...
Contractual language.
And my understanding is that "most often", they are not.

Luna Tick said:
I was in a relationship in which the guy asked me to sext him a picture. He assured me I could trust him and that he would never show the photos to anyone else. Fortunately, I refused. We had a nasty breakup a few months later and he hated me so much that he vandalized my car. Imagine what he would have done if he had had nude photos of me. I'm very, very glad I didn't sext him any. If I had, the copyright would have belonged to me, but I'd doubt he would have cared about that law.
Click to expand...
No. Only if there is a meeting of the minds.
If you took the picture specifically for him and gave it to him without any understanding, it is a gift to do with as he pleases.
The person becomes the owner when you give it to them.


And as for Copyright law.
No enforceable breach unless it is registered.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?
No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. [highlight]You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work.[/highlight] See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.”
U.S. Copyright Office - Copyright in General (FAQ)​


Luna Tick said:
Other photos on the site were taken in secret via hidden cameras. That's a severe violation of privacy. If it's not illegal, it should be.
Click to expand...
Total secretive recording. Don't know if that was on the site. Got a link for that?

Still, the responsibility goes to the up-loader.
Many could say that they were secretly recorded when they actually weren't.
Prove it, should be the default position. Not just assuming that it was secretly recorded.
In the least, they should have to make a demonstration that it most likely was.

My understanding was that people were uploading pics of the underage.
That was a problem that he had to deal with, and why he shut it down.



Luna Tick said:
Uh ... no. He created the web site. He's responsible for the consequences of its existence. If one of the users of his site violates copyright law, he has a duty to remove the offending material.
Click to expand...
There was no shirking of responsibility.
He removed that which he was required to remove. The underage photos.


Luna Tick said:
Actually, yes. The "lawyer" page is actually on the same site. They didn't even bother to set up a fake lawyer URL.
Click to expand...
iLOL
:doh
That was a request for actual evidence of such. Not just your word.


Luna Tick said:
First, not all the photos were freely given. Some were the result of hidden cameras. Second, those that were freely given are owned by the woman or man who took the photo of themself. That's how copyright law works. You take a photo. You own it. No contract is necessary for that law to be in effect.
Click to expand...
Simply wrong. You own it until you give it away as a gift, sell it, trade it, etc...
If it was given to them, it is theirs to do with as they please.
There may be other laws such as State law that cover such, but it is not Copyright law. It is Contractual law.



Luna Tick said:
Bad breakups are a part of life. They hurt, I know. I've been there. However, the fact that your feelings are hurt does not give you the legal right to violate copyright law. And ethically, it shows your character as a person if you choose to take revenge against someone you once loved instead of moving on and working to make your life better.
Click to expand...
There has been no shown violation of any Copyright law.
And all the photos that were freely given without any prohibitive or restrictive language, such as "for your eyes only", are not violations.
 
You're right in a way. So your first action would be to send a cease and desist letter to the owner of the website asking them to remove the content. If they refuse or are unresponsive, you do have grounds to sue.

celticwar17 said:
The website shouldn't be sued but the actual person who put up the photos. In your logic Facebook could be sued because of some random person putting up a photo someone else didn't consent to.
Click to expand...
 
It's a violation of privacy. Should it be okay for a vengeful ex to paper the neighborhood with naked photos? Would it be okay for the local news to publish the naked photo? Would it be okay to publish or upload any nude or embarrassing photo/video without the subject's permission? If you said "yes", you'd be wrong.

It doesn't matter if the individual posed for the photograph or it was taken without his/her knowledge, there are statutes preventing the unauthorized use of one's image, the only exception being certain celebrities whose careers depend upon published photos, either posed or candid. Even then, nude or sexual photos/video even of celebrities cannot be legally published without consent, as civil lawsuits (along with hefty settlements) can attest.

For the every-day average citizen, the unauthorized use statutes are much stricter, much harsher, and subject to certain constitutional privacy protections.

Those who are holier-than-thou in the "if you let someone snap a naked pic, you are basically a slut/manwhore who deserve what you get" category need to step back into the real world, where spouses and lovers share intimacies that are meant for them and them alone. For example, when I was in my 30's my husband took a few topless pictures of me sunning in the backyard. Does that give him the right to scan and upload those photos to the internet for my professional colleagues, my children and grandchildren to see because he gets pissed off that his tuna casserole is cold? Hell, no it doesn't.

When our right of personal privacy is violated without consequence, when we no longer have control over the use and distribution of our own image, imagine the potential consequences. What I'm hearing in some posts is a sense of "the slut/manwhore deserved it" because she/he shared an intimate moment with a loved one and was betrayed. That's not really a message I'd like our society as a whole to send. Not only should it be illegal, it is illegal.
 
I wouldn't go after the website owner, I would go after the person who had the revealing pictures of me that uploaded them. However, I can't imagine any reputable website not having a TOS that a person who uploads said pictures has to agree to, to protect the website from lawsuit. Of course, this doesn't sound like a typical reputable website.
 
I don't work in the mental health field but I'd be stunned if this guy didn't qualify for some level of psychopathy. If the law can't protect us from people like him then it has truly failed.

And the argument about everyone being able to be sued or prosecuted for what people write on their sites is a giant red herring. The persecution of people is the point of Moore's website.
 
my issue with this is, then all we'd have to do is label a website 'revenge p0rn here!' to shut it down. that's like, as another poster said in another thread, 'get a restraining order on someone to negate the 2nd amendment'. just a roundabout way to curb liberty, in my view. target the incidents individually, no blanket bans!
 
DiAnna said:
It's a violation of privacy. Should it be okay for a vengeful ex to paper the neighborhood with naked photos? Would it be okay for the local news to publish the naked photo? Would it be okay to publish or upload any nude or embarrassing photo/video without the subject's permission? If you said "yes", you'd be wrong.

It doesn't matter if the individual posed for the photograph or it was taken without his/her knowledge, there are statutes preventing the unauthorized use of one's image, the only exception being certain celebrities whose careers depend upon published photos, either posed or candid. Even then, nude or sexual photos/video even of celebrities cannot be legally published without consent, as civil lawsuits (along with hefty settlements) can attest.

For the every-day average citizen, the unauthorized use statutes are much stricter, much harsher, and subject to certain constitutional privacy protections.

Those who are holier-than-thou in the "if you let someone snap a naked pic, you are basically a slut/manwhore who deserve what you get" category need to step back into the real world, where spouses and lovers share intimacies that are meant for them and them alone. For example, when I was in my 30's my husband took a few topless pictures of me sunning in the backyard. Does that give him the right to scan and upload those photos to the internet for my professional colleagues, my children and grandchildren to see because he gets pissed off that his tuna casserole is cold? Hell, no it doesn't.

When our right of personal privacy is violated without consequence, when we no longer have control over the use and distribution of our own image, imagine the potential consequences. What I'm hearing in some posts is a sense of "the slut/manwhore deserved it" because she/he shared an intimate moment with a loved one and was betrayed. That's not really a message I'd like our society as a whole to send. Not only should it be illegal, it is illegal.
Click to expand...

Correct me if I am wrong but inorder to publish someones picture dont you have to have some sort of release on file? Or is this situation in some quasi murky area of the law?
 
Maybe people ought to just be choosy who they give revealing pics to? I hope to god I never see my naked ass somewhere on some website... someone's balls will be then hanging over my fireplace mantel once I get ahold of them.
 
Poor judgment by the person in the photo does not excuse poor behavior by the person who publishes/uploads said photo. Where the eff do some of you come up with these ideas? And we wonder why society is as effed-up as it is. :doh
 
Peter Grimm said:
Freedom of speech doesn't apply to defamation and libel. Posting nude pictures of someone without their consent can have a very tangible negative effect on their employment prospects, etc. It's pretty open and shut. The website could easily be sued, as such cases have been successfully prosecuted in the past.
Click to expand...

Posting nudy pics on the internet isn't defamation and libel. It's some dummy that took a picture of their tits, and now it's on the internet. Don't want your tits on the internet? Don't be a dummy and take pictures of them.
 
There definitely appears to be a common behavioral trait between those who say "Those who don't want their boobies online shouldn't let pictures be taken of them" and "Don't want your home to be destroyed by a hurricane/earthquake/fire/Mayan death-god? Don't move there!" Either way it's a cold and morally bankrupt position to take.
 
Devil's advocate question: what kind of human being actually has the patience to read another person's twitter page?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom